Rehab Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 [spoiler=uninformed, getting-offtopic-ish Buddhism ramblings] I've heard that there actually are deities, or figures treated analogously to them (one's definition of "deity" might muddy the dialogue here a bit) in many sects of Buddhism, like some kinds worshiped in Thailand and India, and maybe in some non-Zen Japanese denominations. Buddhism itself being influenced/a kind of response to Hinduism (which has a fuck of a lot of deities IIRC) Whatever the significance of it is, I had a professor who told us (IIRC) that his initial concept of Buddhism was such that he wasn't sure why it wasn't classified as a philosophy rather than a religion by academia, because it was spiritual and all but it seemed much more metaphorical than, say, Semitic/various local pantheon/shamanistic religions. Then he took a trip around a bit of Southeast Asia, and was like "ohhhhkay, yeah, this here is definitely a religion religion" when he saw villages holding festivals dedicated to some part-elephant figure in Buddhism or something. Although I'm not entirely sure whether it might've been a kind of pantheistic merging of Buddhism and Hinduism that he saw, or how much of it was indeed viewed more as metaphor than "make this specific elephant guy happy," or what Your beliefs might not fit the actual school of agnosticism as it's historically known, but at least around my area the commonly used meaning of agnostic kinda seems like it has deteriorated* into "maybe there's a god, or something, it's whatever," so if you just described yourself as agnostic in passing and didn't elaborate much, a lot of people would probably just assume you're more in the area of "might not care too much/on the fence, concerning being religious" than "specifically believes god is unknowable." *(linguistically, not trying to make a value judgement here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) there's no way to possibly estimate some of the parameters of the drake equation to any degree of accuracy. the rational position is to not believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life (but also to have a degree of optimism for its existence) until there is evidence to the contrary. Well, there is already evidence of extraterrestrial life. It may be quite abundant --at least compared to previous expectations-- in our very own solar system if recent studies are anything to go by. Unless you mean intelligent life. Edited January 3, 2014 by Esau of Isaac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 my bad, i should have clarified. the drake equation is used to estimate the incidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 well, take out a few of the parameters here and there and you get an estimate of life in the milky way, as opposed to just intelligent life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Estimates are bound to collected data, previous experiences. Since I can argue that, because we have never met alien life before, we could not possibly estimate chances of doing that. I can also argue that, since it is currently unknown how organic matter went to proteins, DNA and mRNA, were assembled in a proper order and got together to form an organism, and thus also do not know what kind of circmstances those actions took place (not to mention there is no theoretical principle that says our path is the only path), What it comes down to is that Drake's equation is nothing more than a complex way to, ultimately, produce a random number. It has no credibility whatsoever. Not to mention that this is a yes/no question, so a percent chance will simply never reflect reality whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) I should state that I am well aware (and have implied in my initial post) that the Drake Equation is not a satisfactory answer to the question of whether or not extraterrestrial life exists, let alone intelligent life, or a sufficently accurate estimate of life in the galaxy. That said, the Drake Equation is not useless, nor does it lack credibility in the science field (and is, in fact, an accepted tool in the science community). If we are to analyze each parameter: N = R* • fp • ne • fl • fi • fc • L Where R* is the rate of formation of stars suitable for life (when estimating generously, it's simply the amount of stars in a galaxy). This number is easily obtained. fp is given as the fraction of stars with planets. Also a number that is easily obtained to a good degree of accuracy. ne is the fraction of planets with an environment suitable for life. This is observably difficult to obtain and give an accurate measure of, but not impossible. Kepler has tons upon tons of data on exoplanets, and astronomers/astrophysicists have other instruments available to them that are capable of analyzing planetary environments. In fact, at my school, a grad student I know is conducting research in order to find out how accurate these instruments are. fl is the fraction of planets wherein life emerges. Starting here is where the Drake Equation starts to fail in terms of its accuracy. fi (fraction of planets wherein intelligent life can exist) and fc (fraction wherein civilizations occur) are even deeper in purely hand-wavy terrirtory. L is the amount of time it takes for an intelligent species to release its signals into space (time starting at the point of existence of life on that planet). Though we only have statistical data of one, for numerous reasons I think it is logical to say that it takes quite a bit of time for life to evolve and develop technology capable of reaching into space. The amount of time it takes to develop those technologies is the most scientifically difficult to guess, but if we are anything to go by, it would account for far less than one percent of the total amount of time it took for us to appear here (ie, we can suppose somewhat safely that it would take at least a couple billion years for intelligent life to exist, and a mere 200 thousand years or so for sufficiently sophisticated technology to be developed). Taking out the last few factors, namely fi , fc, and L, it's very possible to obtain an estimate of the amount of life in our galaxy to a notable degree of certainty. Certainly not a scientific hiccup when it comes to being credible. Edited January 4, 2014 by Phoenix Wright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 my bad, i should have clarified. the drake equation is used to estimate the incidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. Oh, I didn't know that. I hadn't read into it very much, I'd just assumed it regarded life itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) I should state that I am well aware (and have implied in my initial post) that the Drake Equation is not a satisfactory answer to the question of whether or not extraterrestrial life exists, let alone intelligent life, or a sufficently accurate estimate of life in the galaxy. That said, the Drake Equation is not useless, nor does it lack credibility in the science field (and is, in fact, an accepted tool in the science community). If we are to analyze each parameter: N = R* • fp • ne • fl • fi • fc • L Where R* is the rate of formation of stars suitable for life (when estimating generously, it's simply the amount of stars in a galaxy). This number is easily obtained. fp is given as the fraction of stars with planets. Also a number that is easily obtained to a good degree of accuracy. ne is the fraction of planets with an environment suitable for life. This is observably difficult to obtain and give an accurate measure of, but not impossible. Kepler has tons upon tons of data on exoplanets, and astronomers/astrophysicists have other instruments available to them that are capable of analyzing planetary environments. In fact, at my school, a grad student I know is conducting research in order to find out how accurate these instruments are. fl is the fraction of planets wherein life emerges. Starting here is where the Drake Equation starts to fail in terms of its accuracy. fi (fraction of planets wherein intelligent life can exist) and fc (fraction wherein civilizations occur) are even deeper in purely hand-wavy terrirtory. L is the amount of time it takes for an intelligent species to release its signals into space (time starting at the point of existence of life on that planet). Though we only have statistical data of one, for numerous reasons I think it is logical to say that it takes quite a bit of time for life to evolve and develop technology capable of reaching into space. The amount of time it takes to develop those technologies is the most scientifically difficult to guess, but if we are anything to go by, it would account for far less than one percent of the total amount of time it took for us to appear here (ie, we can suppose somewhat safely that it would take at least a couple billion years for intelligent life to exist, and a mere 200 thousand years or so for sufficiently sophisticated technology to be developed). Taking out the last few factors, namely fi , fc, and L, it's very possible to obtain an estimate of the amount of life in our galaxy to a notable degree of certainty. Certainly not a scientific hiccup when it comes to being credible. ??? This is just false. The Drake equation is not used to estimate the amount of life in the galaxy to any "notable degree of certainty." Here's a response from Drake himself: http://www.setileague.org/askdr/drake.htm The importance of the Drake Equation is not in the solving, but rather in the contemplation. It was written not for purposes of quantification at all, but rather as the agenda for the world's first SETI meeting, in Green Bank WV in 1961. It was quite useful for its intended application, which was to summarize all the various factors which scientists must contemplate when considering the question of other life. Basically, it's just a list of factors that are important for the existence of life. Absolutely no one has ever seriously used it to estimate anything--that would be a failure--and that's not the intent of the Drake equation. The Drake equation was made to stimulate interest, that's all. Edited January 4, 2014 by Chiki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Taking out the last few factors, namely fi , fc, and L, it's very possible to obtain an estimate of the amount of life in our galaxy to a notable degree of certainty. Certainly not a scientific hiccup when it comes to being credible. if you disregard those factors, then you just have an estimate for the number of planets that are capable of sustaining carbon-based life, not an estimate of the amount of (intelligent) life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magical CC Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 I dont belive in God or any other deity but I am still afraid of stuff like ghost and...you know? I have constant fear that something's always near. I have a phobia that someone's always there. So...what am I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 I dont belive in God or any other deity but I am still afraid of stuff like ghost and...you know? I have constant fear that something's always near. I have a phobia that someone's always there. So...what am I? If you don't mind me asking, why are you afraid of ghosts and whatnot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magical CC Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 If you don't mind me asking, why are you afraid of ghosts and whatnot? Because I am a scaredy cat. A scary situation (something look like a shadow of a woman appeared behind me while I was peeing when I was 12) changed my...peeing habit forever. I dont vertically face the toilet anymore. Instead, I step to the side of the toilet and pee from that position so that should something appear, I will have a better look of it. It ddidnt help that my mom, who is a very serious no-nonsense person, also said that she saw a shadow of a woman near her bed around that time (she thought it was my aunt who should be visit my family the same day but it turned out that my aunt didnt come because she was busy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 if you disregard those factors, then you just have an estimate for the number of planets that are capable of sustaining carbon-based life, not an estimate of the amount of (intelligent) life. well not exactly, as the f_l remains in the equation, which is the fraction of planets on which life emerges. as it's been said numerous times, though, those factors are purely speculation, so by "notable degree of accuracy" i just meant that it was slightly more acceptable than the equation in full. however, this is irrelevant because i gave the equation too much credibility anyway. the equation validates itself as we learn more about extraterrestrial life, but as of yet it is, as olwen pointed out, mostly just food for thought anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Because I am a scaredy cat. A scary situation (something look like a shadow of a woman appeared behind me while I was peeing when I was 12) changed my...peeing habit forever. I dont vertically face the toilet anymore. Instead, I step to the side of the toilet and pee from that position so that should something appear, I will have a better look of it. It ddidnt help that my mom, who is a very serious no-nonsense person, also said that she saw a shadow of a woman near her bed around that time (she thought it was my aunt who should be visit my family the same day but it turned out that my aunt didnt come because she was busy). Hmmm. . .well, it's a bit complicated. It sounds somewhat like spiritualism (belief in ghosts and whatnot), but the lack of belief in god(s) falls under atheism. Anyone else want to take a stab at this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 just look up "atheism" on wikipedia... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 just look up "atheism" on wikipedia... Just did. . .says lots about god(s), and nothing about the ghosts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousSpeed Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Well, as others have said, I'd call you an agnostic, not decided on things. I don't say this nearly enough, but here's a word of wisdom: "Worship God. If you are wrong, you lose nothing, and if you are right, you gain infinitely." And in a unrelated note, Atheism is not technically a religion but in 'percentage of people who follow a certain religion' things, I count it and agnosticism as religions for convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 "Worship God. If you are wrong, you lose nothing, and if you are right, you gain infinitely." lol pascal's wager i'd like to think that a god would not be very pleased if one worshipped him solely to hedge his bets on an afterlife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) lol pascal's wager i'd like to think that a god would not be very pleased if one worshipped him solely to hedge his bets on an afterlife. Not a good counterargument. The possibility that God would be pleased exists (he sure seems like a scumbag in the Old Testament) so Pascal's Wager remains valid. The only way to deny it would be to say that it's impossible for God to exist, by appealing to the problem of evil or something else. Why does God allow for the existence of natural disasters? How can God allow for the existence of disasters that needlessly kill innocent people? I guess you might be able to argue that the Holocaust was a result of free will and reject that argument, but it doesn't work for natural disasters. Edited January 6, 2014 by Chiki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BK-201 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Not a good counterargument. The possibility that God would be pleased exists (he sure seems like a scumbag in the Old Testament) so Pascal's Wager remains valid. The only way to deny it would be to say that it's impossible for God to exist, by appealing to the problem of evil or something else. Why does God allow for the existence of natural disasters? How can God allow for the existence of disasters that needlessly kill innocent people? I guess you might be able to argue that the Holocaust was a result of free will and reject that argument, but it doesn't work for natural disasters. Well considering you can't evaluate the probability of God existing isn't the concept of a God that is especially retributive to those who worship only due to the mathematics of Pascal's Wager enough to say that taking Pascal's Wager isn't necessarily mathematically optimal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Not a good counterargument. The possibility that God would be pleased exists (he sure seems like a scumbag in the Old Testament) so Pascal's Wager remains valid. there are many counterarguments to pascal's wager. there's also the possibility that god will eternally torture your soul if you believed in him at all but leave you alone if you were apathetic. there's an infinite set of possible gods, and since there is no evidence to suggest that one type of god is more likely than the other (short of scripture for a given religion, although i doubt that there is much evidence of the judeo-christian god tolerating false worship), then the expected gain of pascal's wager is zero. if anything, you just lose by making wasteful propitiations during your physical lifespan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) Well considering you can't evaluate the probability of God existing isn't the concept of a God that is especially retributive to those who worship only due to the mathematics of Pascal's Wager enough to say that taking Pascal's Wager isn't necessarily mathematically optimal? Huh? I think you need to write more clearly. there are many counterarguments to pascal's wager. there's also the possibility that god will eternally torture your soul if you believed in him at all but leave you alone if you were apathetic. there's an infinite set of possible gods, and since there is no evidence to suggest that one type of god is more likely than the other (short of scripture for a given religion, although i doubt that there is much evidence of the judeo-christian god tolerating false worship), then the expected gain of pascal's wager is zero. if anything, you just lose by making wasteful propitiations during your physical lifespan. You seem to be forgetting what the definition of God is. God has to be omnipotent, omniscient and most importantly for this case, omnibenevolent. Bolded part doesn't make sense. By definition, God is omnibenevolent. A God that eternally tortures your soul is not an omnibenevolent God. Edited January 6, 2014 by Chiki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) You seem to be forgetting what the definition of God is. God has to be omnipotent, omniscient and most importantly for this case, omnibenevolent. Bolded part doesn't make sense. By definition, God is omnibenevolent. A God that eternally tortures your soul is not an omnibenevolent God. then an omnibenevolent god would not reward a person who claims to believe in him solely as the means to win a ticket to the afterlife (i.e., rewarding deceit). please don't accuse me of ignoring a definition when you were guilty of doing it first. this is disregarding that neither omnibenevolence nor omniscience nor even omnipotence are requisite characteristics of god. they are characteristics of only a limited subset of (probably monotheistic) gods. Edited January 6, 2014 by dondon151 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) then an omnibenevolent god would not reward a person who claims to believe in him solely as the means to win a ticket to the afterlife (i.e., rewarding deceit). please don't accuse me of ignoring a definition when you were guilty of doing it first. this is disregarding that neither omnibenevolence nor omniscience nor even omnipotence are requisite characteristics of god. they are characteristics of only a limited subset of (probably monotheistic) gods. Eternally torturing someone for believing in God is a lot less controversial than rewarding someone for believing in God due to fear. If a person believes in God and does good things throughout their entire life due to fear, I think it's good to send them to Heaven, regardless of why they did it. Sure, fear isn't as good a reason as other things, but the consequences of those actions due to fear are still good. Yeah they are. We're talking about theists here. This is the standard accepted definition in contemporary study. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts-god/ Theists largely agree that a maximally great person would be omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and all good. Edited January 6, 2014 by Chiki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jiodi Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 @OP: Whether you are Atheist or Agnostic is a matter of semantics. Even Dawkins admits that he is Agnostic, he uses the term Atheist as an anti-religious label because "it packs more of a punch" or something like that. Atheism is more of a militant anti-established-religion ideology. To actually say "there is no possibility of a God or gods" is an insane amount of secular hubris. Truth is, there is no way of knowing, given the limited scope of human ability to observe and comprehend reality, truth and the universe. If you believe established religion is a pox on our collective human society and have no ties to an established deity, then you can claim to be Atheist. If you have no firm beliefs in the divine or extra-terrestrial you should claim to be Agnostic. Belief in ghosts and whatnot is really only tangentially related. It's just the degree in which you are willing to accept the unknown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts